Requirement Of A Brady Approach In Solving Indian Criminal Cases

Read Time:11 Minute, 13 Second

Author :- Arihant Chatterjee, 2 nd Year , BBA . LLB [ H ] , Sister Nivedita University, Newtown, Kolkata, West Bengal

Introduction

What is a Brady Rule ?

Ans :- The Brady rule is a principle of law that mandates prosecutors to give the defense any important information they have that could help the defendant . The information could lower the defendant’s punishment or establish that a witness against the defendant is lying . The rule formerly was only applied when the defense asked for the information , but prosecutors are now compelled to give it even if they do not ask for it . If a prosecutor breaks this rule , the defendant’s conviction can be overturned . The accused must demonstrate that the information is material and would have affected the outcome of the trial .

This rule had its origin in the famous case of Brady v. Maryland . This evidence which must be established by the prosecutors is known as Brady Material . This is anything that could help the defendant’s case , such as any evidence that could reduce their sentence or discredit a negative witness . The Brady rule was initially only applied where the defendant specifically requested something and was denied by the prosecution . But in the United States v. Bagley , the Supreme Court eliminated this requirement and indicated that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose to defendants all material , favorable evidence in their possession regardless of whether such evidence was requested . Such requirement is violated irrespective of whether there is evidence of such an evidence being withheld with intent or gross negligence by the prosecution .

Key Purpose And Aims Of This Rule :- The Key purpose and aims of this rule can be listed as follows :-

To safeguard the defendant from false witnesses and false convictions
To ensure fairness and avoid malice in judgements
To prevent the prosecutors from making any malicious use of the evidences knowing that it will harm the interests of the defendant
To protect the defendant from unnecessary excess punishments

Brady Rule In The Context Of Indian Criminal Cases

The American Supreme Court in the famous case of Brady v. Maryland (1963) , set a major precedent by creating that prosecutors have a responsibility to furnish the defense with all of the exculpatory evidence . This is popularly known as the Brady Rule , the doctrine has tremendous ramifications on the American justice system and beyond . The question still persists – should India adopt a similar principle or not ? .

Indian criminal legal framework has only recently been overhauled , from centuries-old Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to the new Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) . This is an effort on the behalf of the Parliament towards decolonizing the criminal law framework and citizen’s rights-based . But despite this being a lofty goal , the Acts are characterized by mostly cosmetic changes and fail to live up to their promise of revolutionizing the Indian criminal law system . While the goal of this reform is to modernize the legal system , it fails to fill an essential lacuna in the system , the lack of a fair disclosure requirement . India’s constitutional law recognizes the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution , but neither is there an explicit provision under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) does not provide for now and Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) , requiring exculpatory evidence disclosure on the part of the prosecution .

It gives rise to anxiety concerning prosecutorial responsibility as well as criminal trial transparency . While Indian courts have continually called for fair trials to be held , the absence of an explicit legal requirement like the Brady Rule means large implementation lacunae exist . The present law on disclosure norms is governed by two provisions – Section 173 and 207 CrPC (Section 193 and 230 BNSS).

Section 173 CrPC provides for filing of chargesheet by the police , and it is only after the filing of the chargesheet that the court determines whether it is a suits fit case and goes on to judgement and takes cognizance of the case . It mandates the police to produce before it all documents and other materials on which prosecution is to proceed . Section 193 BNSS has a similar overall structure to Section 173 and adds an expedited investigation provision in cases of sexual offence alone . Section 207 CrPC provides the accused with a right to be provided with copies of all documents presented by the investigating agency to the magistrate . They include the chargesheet , the witness statements which the prosecution is intending to examine , and any other documents on which the prosecution is relying . Section 230 BNSS also retains the template of Section 207 but places a time limit of a period of 14 days on the prosecution to provide the documents . While Section 91 CrPC provides an opportunity to the accused to present his version , this can be done after the framing of charges and not during the pre-trial stage .
A Brady Rule can radically change Indian criminal law by obliging the prosecution to reveal all relevant evidence , including information beneficial to the defense . Section 207 of the CrPC does mandate the production of specific documents such as statements of witnesses and reports , but not a specific provision compelling the production of exculpatory evidence . Implementing a Brady-like rule would enhance transparency , prevent wrongful convictions and uphold the integrity of trials by ensuring that no crucial evidence is withheld from the accused .

Cases Signifying The Need For Adopting A Brady Approach In Solving Indian Criminal Cases :-

Some of the Landmark cases which signified the need for adopting a Brady approach in solving Indian criminal cases are listed below :-

Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) :- The Supreme Court has persistently followed the principle that justice is the foundation of criminal trials , as reiterated in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) . The incorporation of Brady principles into Indian law would strengthen this commitment by mandating disclosure of exculpatory evidence , preventing wrongful convictions and administering justice with utter transparency .

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) :- Indian courts have always recognized the obligation of the prosecution to behave reasonably in cases, with the Supreme Court affirming in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) that fairness and due process are inherent in Article 21 . But absent a law like the Brady Rule, prosecutors have enormous discretion in disclosing evidence, threatening its potential misuse and the ideals of a fair trial .

Cases of Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor , Siddharth Vashisht v. State ( NCT Delhi ) and V.K. Sasikala v. State :- In the case of Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor , the Privy Council reaffirmed that fair disclosure is required to make the trial fair .This principle has been asserted in numerous judgments , including Siddharth Vashisht v. State ( NCT Delhi ) , in which the Supreme Court categorically stated the prosecution’s duty to disclose all material which is relevant to ensure the maintenance of the fairness of proceedings . Also , in V.K. Sasikala v. State , the Court ruled that an accused has the right to go through documents put up before a court , although they were never actually exhibited on behalf of the prosecution .

Cases of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Pandit and Nitya Dharmananda v. Sri Gopal Reddy :- The discretion grant given to the prosecution under the law in determining the materiality of the evidence has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi , where the court said that the evidence at the pre-trial stage is the discretion of the prosecution . Even though the court has been otherwise in Nitya Dharmananda v. Sri Gopal Reddy , legal propriety of this decision remains questionable due to its delivery by a division bench as opposed to the full bench judgement in Debendra Nath . Therefore , pre-trial disclosure is entirely within the discretion of the prosecution, and the accused does not have any tangible right to pre-trial disclosure of evidence . The general discretion against the prosecution and the lack of adequate right of disclosure against the accused are likely to lead to suppression of evidence , which taints the justice system’s equity .

Benefits Of Adopting A Brady Approach In Solving Indian Criminal Cases :-

The benefits of adopting a Brady approach in solving Indian criminal cases are listed as follows :-

Strengthening the Right to a Fair Trial :- The Brady Rule ensures that all evidence beneficial to the accused , such as exculpatory evidence , is disclosed prior to trial . This upholds the presumption of “innocent until proven guilty” and provides the accused with a reasonable opportunity to defend himself . Under current Indian law , disclosure of only evidence upon which the prosecution relied is mandated , excluding possibly exonerating evidence . A requirement of a Brady approach would fill this lacuna and buttress Article 21 of the Indian Constitution that enshrines the right to life and liberty , including the right to a fair trial .

Lessening Wrongful Convictions :- Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence has often led to wrongful convictions . By mandating disclosure of exculpatory evidence , the Brady approach precludes as much as possible this risk and prevents innocent individuals from being unfairly punished . For example , contrary witness statements or forensic reports incriminating the accused would prevent miscarriages of justice if disclosed early .

Promoting Transparency and Accountability :- The Brady Rule imposes a legal responsibility on prosecutors to act transparently by making known to the defense all the evidence related to the case . This reduces prosecutorial abuse and involves responsibility in investigating agencies . In India , where abuse of power , through prosecutorial discretion in selective disclosure , is taking place , adopting this measure would prevent power misuse and increase confidence in the judicial process .

Increasing Judicial Efficiency :- Early production of all evidence facilitates better case preparation by both parties , reducing surprise evidence-related delays during trials . This can make judicial processes easier and reduce pendency at courts . It also reduces post-conviction appeals on the basis of suppressed evidence , saving judicial resources .

Aligning Indian Law with International Standards :- The majority of the world’s jurisdictions have established fair disclosure as the standard , similar to the Brady Rule . Imposing such a requirement in India will align its criminal justice system closer to international human rights norms and best practice standards .

Balancing Rights and Investigative Demands :- The Brady policy strikes a balance between individual rights and investigation needs by disclosing only material exculpatory evidence without revealing information that is confidential and not related to the case . This is a balance between national security or witness confidentiality and due process .
Redressing Socioeconomic Inequalities :- In India , the accused individuals generally do not have access to the finances to gather proof of innocence individually . A Brady – like requirement would alleviate this strain by compelling the prosecutors to come forward with all material evidence from the very start , leveling the playing field for marginalized defendants .

Deterrence Against Suppression of Evidence :- Prosecutors who fail to disclose exculpatory evidence under a Brady framework face sanctions or mistrials , offering a powerful deterrent against suppression of information . It would ensure that trials are conducted ethically and in accordance with principles of natural justice .

Conclusion

The Indian position in the matter of disclosure obligations is not altered with the advent of the BNSS . The lack of a reasonable disclosure requirement puts the accused in jeopardy at the hands of the state and wounds the very fiber of the rudimentary rights system under our Constitution . The Supreme Court has reiterated time and again the connection between the two notions of fair disclosure and fair trial , and it has considered the former to be an essential constituent of the latter . The notion goes to the heart of our criminal jurisprudence and the presumption underlying the same – Innocent until proven guilty . The Supreme Court having promulgated the Draft Rules which have been adopted under it has opened the door to the enforceability of fair disclosure . But this introduction is incomplete in the sense that it merely provides for the submission of a list of the un-relied documents and leaves absolutely nothing for making available the very documents themselves . This vagueness has led to conflicting rulings by courts , and that has generated legal uncertainties .

The Legislature’s failure to incorporate the Draft Rules into the BNSS has been a missed opportunity to bring about a long-awaited change . While the Court has left open the window to an equitable disclosure right , only legislative integration can provide a clear and effective right , and the government must recognize that now . The Brady Rule offers instrumental guidance for the shifting of the focus toward exculpatory evidence and enacts the creation of a system grounded on rights . It further suggests that prosecution adopt an active disclosure system to the broad latitude granted by the BNSS .What is required is a statutory reform with a standard framework for fair disclosure at the pre-trial level with focus on exculpatory evidence . Legislative enactment of Draft Rules based on the formulation of a Brady – type model is the call of the day . Therefore , it will then our judicial system see the light from the dark period of legal repression to the light of fair disclosure .

Reference